Madhya Pradesh Court February 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ayukt Indore Nagar Palika Nigam Vs. Jagdish
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR466]
J.K. Maheshwari, J.1. This petition is filed invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the propriety, tenability and validity of the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the labour Court, Indore in case No. 4444/2004 MPIR, whereby the direction of re-engagement of respondent from the date of passing of the order without back wages has been issued. Appeal preferred by petitioner against the said order was also rejected by the Industrial Court on 21.8.2007.2. Shri Anand Agrawal, Counsel appearing for petitioner has strenuously urged that because the order of retrenchment of respondent was not passed in accordance to law, however, he cannot derive the benefit of Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the benefit of Section 25H is only available where the employees is legally retrenched, otherwise the said workman is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 25H. If a workman has not been retrenched legally then the protectio...
Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Through Chief S ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: AIR2008MP142; 2008(2)MPHT490
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner, an organization working for the legal rights of oustee families affected by the large dams in the Narmada Valley, has filed this Public Interest Litigation for appropriate directions for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the oustee families of the Omkareshwar Project in the State of Madhya Pradesh.Facts of the case2. The background facts in short are that on 6th July, 1968, the State of Gujarat made a complaint to the Government of India under Section 3 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 stating that a water dispute has arisen between the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashra over the use, distribution and control of water of Narmada, an inter-State river. The Central Government constituted the 'Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal' (for short 'the NWDT') for adjudication of the water dispute, by notification dated 6th October, 1969 and made a reference of the water dispute to the NWDT. The NWDT made an award, called, the 'N...
Kedar Nath Mishra Vs. Appellant Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Ac ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR640]; (2008)IIILLJ311MP
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order March 13, 2004, Annexure P/5 which has been passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of its powers vested with him under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent Management has been allowed and the order passed by the Controlling Authority has been set aside.2. The facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner earlier was an employee of the Coal Mines Welfare Organisation and the aforesaid Act was repealed by the Coal Mines Welfare Organisation (Repeal Act, 1986) with effect from October 1, 1986. The Repeal Act has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P/1 to the petition. As a consequence of the same, all the assets and liabilities in relation to the erstwhile employees employed in Coal Mines Welfare Organisation stood transferred t...
Krishna Bai and ors. Vs. RiyajuddIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1508
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against an award dated 27.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sendhwa in Claim Case No. 87 of 2001. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,44,032 with interest to the claimants for the death of Om Prakash, who died in a vehicular accident. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded is on a lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out in the compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent?2. Heard Mr. Subodh Abhyankar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. C.P. Singh, learned Counsel f...
Ghasitibai Vs. Ramgopal Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT385
Sushma Shrivastava, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.98 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/98 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 13.10.97 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 243-A/94. 2. Brief Facts giving rise to this second appeal are as follows: Plaintiff/appellant Ghasiti Bai filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in the alternative for possession, in respect of the suit land comprising of Khasra No. 292/3, 293/3, 302 and 295/2, total area 18.48 acres and the house built thereon, situated at village Surkhi, District Sagar. According to plaintiff, she is the sole surviving legal heir of her father, Late Pratap Singh, who died in the year 1963 and after his death, she became the owner of all his movable and immovable property. Her father Late Pratap Singh also executed a registered family settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 27.3.61, w...
Prakash Chand Nahta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(MP)367; [2008]301ITR134(MP)
Dipak Misra, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee in respect of the following two questions:1. Whether, in view of the facts that Mohd. Rashid, proprietor of Mohammad Rashid and Co., Jabalpur, was not summoned in evidence by the Income-tax Officer, in spite of the request made by the applicant under Section 131, in this behalf there is justification in law to use the evidence recorded behind the back of the applicant without affording an opportunity to him to cross-examine the said Mohd. Rashid and drawing an adverse inference?2. Whether the assessment vitiated in law as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard and failed in summoning the witnesses as requested under Section 131 and his failure to consider the affidavit of Mohd. Rashid filed along with the written reply submitted on December 31, 1985?2. To deal with the...
State of M.P. Vs. Bharat Construction Co.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MPHT411
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The revision has been preferred by the State aggrieved by award dated 28-5-2002 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 196/91.2. The facts in short giving rise to the revision indicates that M/s Bharat Construction Company was given contract for construction of 52 units of non-residential buildings. The agreement was executed on 24-2-1983 and work order was issued, it was to be completed within 12 months including the rainy season. The contractor was unable to complete the work, time was extended on four occasions, last extension was given till 30-6-1986. Work was completed on 30-9-1986. The Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs. 2,41,008/- by way of escalation and interest thereon. Aggrieved thereby the revision has been preferred.3. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that there was no escalation clause as period of contract was 12 months, hence grant of escalation is against the agreement. He has relied upon Clause 32...
Mohd. Riyaz and anr. Vs. State of Bar Council and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT143
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a practicing lawyer and is registered as an Advocate in the rolls of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh ( for short 'the State Bar Council'). He has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation contending inter alia that the respondent No. 7, who is working as Secretary of the State Bar Council has already attained the age of superannuation but is still being continued by the State Bar Council and that he is being paid salary much in excess of what is permitted under the rules. The petitioner has therefore prayed that this Court should issue a writ/direction to the State Bar Council to remove the respondent No. 7 from the post of Secretary of the State Bar Council forthwith and for a further writ/direction to the State Bar Council and its Chairman to recover all payments towards salary made to the respondent No. 7 in excess of what is permitted under the rules and all payments of salary made to respondent No. 7 after the age...
Sandeep Kumar Richhariya Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT400
ORDERA.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 7.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 2370/2007, filed under the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005.2. The facts briefly are that by an advertisement published in June 2005 in the news paper 'Rozgar and Nirman', applications were invited for 883 posts of Constable (General Duty) and out of 883 posts, 97 posts were to be filled in the 10th Battalion, SAF, Sagar. In response to the advertisement, the appellant applied and he went through successfully a physical test and thereafter he appeared in the written examination in July 2005 and was selected along with other candidates for interview. After the interview, the select list of 97 candidates was prepared and in the select list, the name of the appellant found place amongt the successful candidates at serial No. 13 of the list pertaining to General Category. The list was sent to the respondent No. 3 Inspector Ge...
Shyama Bai Widow of Late Mulayam Chand JaIn Vs. Murlidhar S/O Late Dr. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT123
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The land lady, being dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 19/6/2003 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Shahdol in case No. 3/A 90/92-93 dismissing her application of eviction against the respondent, has filed this revision application under Section 23-A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').2. The present applicant, being landlord of special category as defined under Section 23-J of Chapter III-A of the Act, filed an application before Rent Controlling Authority for eviction of respondent from the suit accommodation which is non-residential on the ground of her bona fide need as envisaged under Section 23-A(b) of the Act.3. The application for eviction was filed by applicant-Shyama Bai against her tenant Shobhraj Ahuja who died during the pendency of the application before the Rent Controlling Authority and present respondent-Murlidhar was brought on record as his legal representative.4. The pleadings of the applicant in her app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »